Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]
Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority. For example, in the D.C. Circuit (where the Flynn case was brought), the ruling in United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., No. 15-3016 (D.C. Cir. 2016) reaffirms the deference to prosecutors on such questions. The Court noted that this deference extends to core constitutional principles:
“The Executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions is long settled. That authority stems from the Constitution’s delegation of “take Care” duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996); In re Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255, 262-63 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss charges once brought, “lie[] at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.” Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court thus has repeatedly emphasized that“[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor’s discretion.” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979); see Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).
Correspondingly, “judicial authority is . . . at its most limited” when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations. . . . The Executive routinely undertakes those assessments and is well equipped to do so.”
Fourth, there are cases where the Department has moved to dismiss cases on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct or other grounds touching on due process, ethical requirements or other concerns. One that comes to mind is United States v. Stevens where President Obama’s own Attorney General, Eric Holder, asked the same judge in the Flynn case to dismiss that case. That was just roughly ten years ago. As with Flynn, there was an allegation of withheld evidence by prosecutors.
At the time of the motion Holder declared “The Department of Justice must always ensure that any case in which it is involved is handled fairly and consistent with its commitment to justice. Under oftentimes trying conditions, the attorneys who serve in this Department live up to those principles on a daily basis.” What is obvious is the new guidelines issued at the time were honored in the breach during the Flynn prosecution.
While people of good faith can certainly disagree on the wisdom or basis for the Flynn motion, it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion.
The rare statement by President Obama is also interesting in light of the new evidence. As I discussed in a column this morning in the Hill newspaper, the new material shows that Obama was following the investigation of Flynn who he previously dismissed from a high-level position and personally intervened with President Donald Trump to seek to block his appointment as National Security Adviser. Obama reportedly discussed the use of the Logan Act against Flynn. For a person concerned with precedent, that was also a curious focus. The Logan Act is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used to successfully convicted a single person since the early days of the Republic. Now that is dubious precedent.
Full Transcript: Megyn Kelly’s Interview With Tara Reade: “And in that moment, I knew this was really bad. I knew I was it was more than just like the assault,” former Senate aide Tara Reade told Megyn Kelly.
Reade is credible.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/09/full-transcript-megyn-kellys-interview-with-tara-reade/
Does anyone have a feeling that both political sides have established a group of professional trollers to make comments in all threads, regardless of their relevance to the topic of the article. A little monitoring as to relevance would save a lot of bandwidth, and thwart these obvious paid would be “influencers”. Just keep repeating the lie until it’s accepted as truth, appears to be the motto in most comment threads.
Allan– Just read it. It does sound credible. Her little part about wondering where the bag is when she was pushed against the wall sounds natural but not the type of thing one would think to make up. Thanks
Let’s look at this statement from Obama: “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.”
Forget about whether Flynn committed perjury (he didn’t and wasn’t charged with it) or whether the Obama administration did the same thing he is saying has “no precedent”. Obama didn’t say *convicted of* perjury. He said *charged with* perjury. Last I heard our criminal justice system had a presumption of innocence. But I don’t have a Harvard Law degree like Obama so what do I know?
Even the Soviets and Nazis at least pretended to have trials.
Bill Clinton never went to jail for perjury. They aren’t charging the odious Andrew MCabe with perjury even tho he lied to the IG. Brennan and Clapper both lied to Congress and I don’t see them wearing orange jump suits.
Kathleen:
Well, they’re special never having defended their country with anything more than some feeble words while drawing a big paycheck.
Hussein O. was a ‘constitutional professor’? Lol!
Turley the environmental lawyer
Oceans to significantly rise:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/159/climate-change-emergency?page=6#post-6663
since not enough will be done.
Maybe. But Obama seems unsure. He spent millions on a mansion practically on the water’s edge.
If so, then a greater fool than the seller.
Yeah and international banks still lend on oceanfront property and international insurers still insure it. They’re all fools right, Benson? It’s actually a hoax perpetrated on fools by academics seeking grant money and inventing the crisis. And since you’re so invested in the notion, well professor, you draw the conclusion.
mespo727272 —- I know the science. You do not. The more fool you.
Benson:
“mespo727272 —- I know the science. You do not. The more fool you.”
********************
And the international bankers, insurers and ex-Presidents know the truth, your “science ” notwithstanding. All of them are infinitely smarter, richer and better off than you so I’ll go with success not your version of “science.”
Invest there, loose your shirt. Pants as well.
I did. I haven’t and you’ve got no skin in the game.
mespo727272 — By all means, buy prop right down on the waterfront. As much as possible.
😃😈🙉
Einstein’s predictions proved correct. That’s science. So far climate ‘science’ has not even matched a coin toss. That’s b.s. generated for money.
That sounds like the Church’s argument to Galileo. Authority.
The ‘science’ also said snowfalls would be a thing of the past in the UK, that polar bears were vanishing, that hurricanes would become more numerous, that polar ice would be totally gone about now, and on and on.
Einstein’s predictions proved correct. That’s science. So far climate ‘science’ has not even matched a coin toss. That’s b.s. generated for money.
I know the science.
Natacha pretends she’s a nurse (or is it s lawyer) and you pretend to be a climatologist.
Absurd x22 is being even denser than usual. I understand climatology, having read some texts and papers. That’s not the same as being a climatologist.
I also understand Einstein’s General Relativity, indeed better than the vast majority of physicists. That is not the same as being a cosmologist.
🎓
I understand climatology, having read some texts and papers.
No, you’ve read some texts and papers.
Quit trying to persuade us you’re senile.
Absurd x22 has the density of boron carbide.
David– Those are not questions of type I would put to Seth. If you are legit on this subject I would like to hear how you address these issues.
See below.
David– Since you have a firm grasp of the subject of climatology I would like to hear your view of the “Climategate” documents leaked by an insider at the Hadley Climate Research Unit in East Anglia just before the Copenhagen conference.
A little more narrowly focused, why do their emails show them fretting about how they can get rid of (hide) the Medieval Warming Period?
Are you at all concerned that Phil Jones admitted he didn’t know how to use Excel while working with the data?
How is it their models have been even less reliable than the covid models?
Why aren’t the ice caps gone as predicted?
Why have we had fewer hurricanes rather than more as predicted?
Why do the people going to the poles to prove global warming keep getting stuck in the ice and calling to be rescued?
Why since California was to have endless droughts because of global warming is it that dams suddenly filled to bursting and Mammoth had to close because the ski area had too much snow?
Why are the Russians saying we are approaching a new Ice Age?
It doesn’t seem the science is settled. In fact it doesn’t even seem like science just now.
Young, try Skeptical Science
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
In the left side column there are a variety of topics. These might answer some of your questions.
Also, on Real Climate in the upper left corner is a Start Here. Possibly that will help.
For the remainder, ask me again, but only one question at a time, please. 😆
David
Why hide the Medieval Warm period?
Young — The Medieval Warm Period was a North Atlantic phenomenon, not global. In attempting to make a global temperature product one doesn’t want merely regional effects.
Thanks. I will look into that. However, I think they should have left it in the record and then explained just that rather than leaving internal memoranda saying they wanted to suppress it. Explaining it as a North Atlantic phenomenon at the outset would have been better if demonstrably true.
2009 wants it’s bogus controversy back.
“….In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth’s mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding: “based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway… it is a growing threat to society”.[14]
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Those committee reports are covered in the article.
Here are the scientists and organizations in support of the consensus on climate change (short version – every relevant scientific organization and national academy of sciences in the world).
“…Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]…
…National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[27][28]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[29] which in 2007[30] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[31] …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Each organization and it’s statement follow in the article.
I’m sure i’m not the only one here eagerly waiting for Young’s research on the subject to be published. Maybe we won’t have to worry about this for our kids and grand kids anymore.
bythebook, yes, one can often start with Wikipedia.
As for sea level rise, it’s already a concern in South Florida. Also in the Tidal Basin below the Jefferson Memorial during spring tides; wet walkways at the bottom.
Hmmm. Susan Anderson lives right down at the waterfront. She has flooding problems now when the storms roll into Boston harbour.
We don’t here about the flooding in the Mekong River delta but the Pacific Ocean islanders certainly raise a fuss.
“Bankers” are not as discriminating as mespo assumes – see Great Recession – nor are climate predictions for sea rise significant in the short term. We are talking mostly about the world we leave our children and grandchildren
Book– So you think David is full of crap when he says don’t buy on the beach?
btb:
““Bankers” are not as discriminating as mespo assumes – see Great Recession – nor are climate predictions for sea rise significant in the short term.”
***********************
Yeah climatologists are better at predicting the weather- See every season’s freak snowstorm. Do you ever read what you spew forth?
Oh and that last line straight out of Oprah. Try to remember what Samuel Johnson said, “Maudlin remonstration is the last refuge of the stupid.”
mespo727272 — Sigh. Meteorologists predict the weather. Climatologists do not.
“mespo727272 — Sigh. Meteorologists predict the weather. Climatologists do not.”
********************
So do bankers, insurers and anyone else using actuarial science. That’s the point. Bookworm understands nothing at all so we have to start small and work him up. I suppose he’s trying to help your argument but the simple fact is most every global warming prediction has failed miserably — as Allen notes — so how many times does your side get to be wrong?
Make that “as Young notes.”
mespo727272 *sigh* Climatologists make projections, not predictions. In fact, the “Business As Usual” projections have done quite well up to 2020.
Quit spouting the fakery you get from the denial houses. If you don’t want to actually learn climatology, just some answers to common questions, try the Skeptical Science website.
That site mixes politics with science. What good is distorted science when the science changes to meet political needs?
Speaking of precedents (or lack thereof): need I mention a U.S. president being born in a foreign country?
Obama was born in Honolulu. Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and it’s residents granted American citizenship in 1900, more than 60 years before Obama was born.
He sure did not act like it.
Bullsh–, Obama was born in Kenya. His Cert. of Live Birth from Hawaii, is a poorly done Photoshopped creation. It was investigated by REAL Investigators. You don’t want to believe it, well, Tough Sh–, because it’s a fact! Cry all you want! Obama can impress me, by practicing Law, again. Let’s see him or Moochelle, do that!
Nick: another American nutter.
Another one of the anonymice! Is there no end to this infestation?
🐉
Obama has never practiced law and never will. He is way too lazy to work the punishing hours.
He practiced law from 1993 to 1996.
Yes, I’m sure Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham (both college students with little income) undertook expensive and time-consuming international travel in order to enjoy the splendors of obstetric care in Mombasa, and for BO Sr. to introduce Ann Dunham to his wife. And, right at the same time, they had Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu put a bogus birth announcement in the Honolulu papers. And, after they were dead, their agents managed to persuade Gov. Lingle’s health commissioner and the register of vital statistics to lie publicly when they said they located Obama’s long-form birth certificate just where you’d expect in a looseleaf binder in the state archives. And, in addition, their agents persuaded some tech to photoshop a fake long form using as a basis someone else’s period long form as a basis.
I believe EVERYTHING I see on TV too. Did you see that guy leap over a tall building in a single bound?
That article is not only wrong about the Supreme’s decision, it is simply being dishonest. First, there is the unsubstantiated claim: “The 9th Circuit agreed with her and in so doing, overturned her conviction and threw out the entire law.
However, the lower court’s reversal wasn’t based on arguments presented by her defense . . .” So, the 9th Circuit did NOT agree with her, but instead decided to supply her a defense that her lawyers had never proposed.
That is only one of the blatant misrepresentations in this article. The very last paragraph reveals the truth. The only thing the Supreme’s decided is that the court cannot consider a defense argument that was never brought up by the defense attorneys. This decision has nothing to do with immigration law.
Nine to zero means your argument is in vain.
I think you should reread the article.
Obama: “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.”
Turley misses the significance of Obama misstating the charge against Flynn: “perjury” is false testimony in a court of law which by definition means that there is an EXACT record of ALL that was said, whereas “lying to the FBI” involves no such record. Obama knows the difference but he lies for effect. However, you can hear it in his voice that he doesn’t even believe himself…he knows the focus is now on him and his illegal acts.
They had something of a record (of a conversation in which none of the parties were under oath). Then Peter Sztrok doctored it.
Yes, they had a “record” of notes the FBI agents made regarding the “interview.” But there’s no way of actually checking the accuracy or completeness of those notes- that’s a fundamental problem. And the original notes can not be found. All we have is the doctored version so far. Sidney Powell had been demanding the original 302’s from the FBI, but they never produced them. You can call it “something of a record,” but it does not come close to the record produced in a court of law. The FBI must stop this easily abused practice and actually record their interviews.
Did the anonycat eat all the anonymice? All appear gone.
🐱🐀🐁
oh gee, i wonder where the “precedent” came from??
Obama never conducted a trial as an attorney criminal or civil so how would he know. Obama is a preening Woodrow Wilson imitation
I believe Wilson had more time under his belt as a working lawyer. He was also a prominent scholar and put in time as President of Princeton University. He was the real deal; BO’s the knock-off.
Woodrow Wilson after 100 years of birth registration, debt slavery, crushing oppotunities for black Americans, and world wars, exceeds Barack Obama as a destroyer of liberty. Barack is a definite knock off of a geuine monster. He exceeds Wilson in his public blasphemies of Christ and the holy Ghost.
I am glad O is our x president. You know what they say hindsight is better than foresight. I wonder how many people would vote different today. With all this info. that has come to light and there is more to come. I believe we will learn that O was the most untruthful president we have ever had. Not to mention all his cabinet members.
Amen!
The fake news media is the enemy of the people. So don’t count on it all ‘coming to light.’ Most of the media is doing the opposite: keeping it in the dark.
Thanks Jonathon for all this info. you are right on again. Greatly appreciated